Slashdot Mirror


CherryOS Goes Open Source

netsniper writes "The CherryOS website now acknowledges a forthcoming alliance with Open Source Software! After going 'on hold' recently, a re-release of CherryOS is purported to be coming in May according to the site. This is great news on the surface, but let's see how it pans out. This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus."

45 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. So I guess this means.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..that they are popping their Cherry?

  2. Nothing to see. by RangerRick98 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heh, first time I tried to load this story I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." I can't help but wonder if the CherryOS people might make a similar statement in May when they're supposed to open the source.

    --
    "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    1. Re:Nothing to see. by rpozz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems unlikely that they're doing it voluntarily. Maybe they came to an agreement with the people behind PearPC in order to keep the whole thing out of court?

    2. Re:Nothing to see. by RangerRick98 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, now that I've looked at the site, I can't help but wonder if they're announcing something else entirely. Maybe they mean that the "CherryOS" product is gone, and the cherryos domain is now for some phantom open source project that they plan to create under the name "Cherry" to try to regain some semblance of legitimacy.

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    3. Re:Nothing to see. by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this is true, then the agreement sucks.

      At the very least, it must include an admission of guilt and a formal apology, or some form of other punitive measures.

      It seems they can *totally* get away with it now, and nobody will even know they did something wrong.

      Don't let it happen.

    4. Re:Nothing to see. by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No: it's not a Linux-like OS that runs on a PPC platform, but rather a PPC emulator that runs on an AMD/Intel platform. Very, very, v e r y s l o w l y.

      You're right, though; you can run Linux on a PPC. Linus does. You can also run FreeBSD on a PPC ..... Apple do .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Nothing to see. by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whatever. All I know is that I can't wait to see if I can get it to run on my Phantom gaming console.

      Shit, if that works out I figure I'll go whole hog and create the worlds first vapor super cluster.

      It certainly won't take up much space.

      KFG

  3. oh please by eobanb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh please. Can this whole shenanigan just end already? By now, it's already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that CherryOS is a repackaged version of PearPC (google for "spiro multimax 3000"). Arben and MXS are using absolutely any tactic to get attention. He must have a serious ego problem.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

  4. It's Easy by CypherXero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy. All they had to do in order to avoid all the bad press is to start out with it being Open Source. The GPL states that you can charge for a product, or do whatever you like with it, just as long as your provide the source code. And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.

    It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.

    1. Re:It's Easy by mikepaktinat · · Score: 5, Informative
      And if you use source code from another project (PearPC), then you have to acknowledge it.

      The problem being that the developer has sworn up and down that he used none of the PearPC code.
    2. Re:It's Easy by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably because they thought they'd get away with it. Developers tend to think that noone will understand a thing in the inner workings of their applications as long as they protect the sourcecode.

      --
      The following statement is true
      The preceding statement is false
    3. Re:It's Easy by jb.hl.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hence why 'selling' a 100% GPL product is never going to be a wise business move.

      Which is why Red Hat crashed and burned all those years ago.

      Obviously.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    4. Re:It's Easy by elgatozorbas · · Score: 3, Funny
      It was so simple and easy, I don't know why they didn't Open Source Cherry OS from the begining.

      Because someone would copy it and call it Banana OS?

    5. Re:It's Easy by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Informative
      From the linked article:

      The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of a Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's hired legal team regarding the use of said Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using the Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice but to eliminate the majority of the Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor's marks that are being used on www.centos.org.

      This is about trademark - not copyright. From Redhat's email to CentOS:

      As you are aware, our client is the owner of rights for numerous trademarks, including but not limited to its famous RED HAT mark and RHEL (collectively, the "RED HAT marks"). ...
      While Red Hat permits others to redistribute the software that constitutes Red Hat Linux, Red Hat does not authorize any person to use the RED HAT marks in association with such redistribution in any fashion, except by express agreement. In this regard, our client is concerned that your use of the RED HAT marks on your web site in this manner is likely to create confusion, mistake and/or deception among consumers with respect to the source, origin, sponsorship or approval of the products sold under your company name.

      This has nothing to do with the software that makes up Redhat which is (last time I looked) entirely GPLed. And CentOS continues today - sans Redhat trademarks.
  5. how lies work... by jhealy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If your friend lies to you, and then comes clean... you maybe forgive them, but you never really respect them all that much, because you know they can lie to your face.
    CherryOS will never look that cool to any of us, because they only came clean because of being caught in a lie.

  6. "Due to overwhelming demand" by BabyDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    s/demand/threats of legal action/

    It would be funny if the OSS release proved that it wasn't a rip-off of PearPC. Unlikely, but funny.

  7. Delay Tactic by crypto55 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like this is all just a delay tactic for CherryOS to get it's code in line. I'm surprised that they didn't stay on hold for a while longer to gain more time. As far as the "Due to Overwhelming Demand," that's ridiculous. The entire OSS community has been up in arms about their crap. This is just them trying not to get sued, although it would be hilarious if they were actually legit... no comments there

    --
    Due to financial difficulties, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
  8. Ummm... by DoubleDangerClub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm confused, PearPC is already open source...
    *scratches head*
    Oh well, I guess they finally realized, if you can't beat them, join them.
    This whole CherryOS thing has been completely stupid. Why do people think they can slap a different name on something and sell it, when it's already free?

    --
    Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
    Try Ubuntu FREE! --
    1. Re:Ummm... by rpozz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There were some absolute bastards who registered azureus.org a while ago (seems to have changed now), and offered a version of Azureus which came bundled with spyware. Hopefully this sort of practice of exploiting free/open software doesn't become too popular.

  9. Still violating GPL? by The+New+Andy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the GPL:

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

    Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?

    1. Re:Still violating GPL? by Drantin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, actually. Remember nmap vs SCO?

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  10. Its too late for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The developer of the Altivec emulation (the one who was collecting money for a lawsuit) has already revoked their rights to his code. Even if they try to open source they still have problems as they are now dealing with copyrighted code.

    1. Re:Its too late for this by arodland · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you can't; the grandparent post actually makes no sense. A random developer can't say "you don't have the right to use my code anymore" and take away any rights that the GPL already granted you. That developer could release all of his further changes under the "GPL except CherryOS can't use this code" license, but said license is clearly GPL-incompatible :)

      What does affect CherryOS is section 4 of the GPL itself, which essentially states that any attempt to violate the GPL terminates any rights that the GPL might have granted you. Combined with section 5, that should mean that CherryOS has no right to distribute PearPC code.

      Now, for some unrelated speculation. Maybe they're planning on releasing some "bleached" source, and then say "look, guys, we opened the source just to make you happy, and prove to you that we never used PearPC code" ?

  11. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one wish to thank CherryOS developers for being so generous to give the fruits of their so hard work to the community.

  12. Ah, the master plan to open source Windows! by ardor · · Score: 5, Funny

    This move is probably a result of the many reviews of their product that set out to prove it was bogus.

    1. Say Windows XP/Longhorn is bogus
    2. Wait for them to release it as Open Source
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!

    --
    This sig does not contain any SCO code.
  13. It's always been open source by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're only admitting it now.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  14. Can they do this? by strider44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can they just open source their "project" now? Is it not too late? Hasn't several developers permanantly revoked the GPL license from CherryOS so they can never use their code?

  15. Yeah, right. by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    In today's other top stories, Fox News just went liberal, and hired Al Gore as their director of programming. Michael Moore also decided to become a warblogger, and said he was wrong about everything he said about the Bush administration.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  16. Good luck by Underholdning · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hope this goes better than Cherry Coke.

  17. Don't let it get away so easily by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It smells more like a half-assed effort to calm down legal threats than anything.

    The moment you see their words "popular demand" you know they're STILL trying to lie and get away with something.

  18. It's a little ickier than that. by kahei · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Notice how they can abbreviate that to

    Cherry O. S. Project

    and thence to

    Cherry OS Project

    and thence to

    CherryOS Project

    and finally

    CherryOS.

    I gotta respect them -- they're not just a _bit_ slimy, they are slimier than Fungus the Bogeyman in a barrel of natto!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  19. No, I'm New Here by New+Here · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, I'm New Here

  20. copyright infingment != theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can you steal it. They only copied and modified the source, no theft here.

    Move along, the parent is nothing but a TROLL!

  21. Re:CherryOS "Inventor" can't even ... by benjcurry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. I'm an American with a logical mind and I've never understood why people in the U.S. use mm.dd.yyyy...makes no sense. Either yyyy.mm.dd or dd.mm.yyyy, please!

  22. Re:Cherry OS using the gnu-head . . . by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is it a trademark? According to http://www.gnu.org/graphics/heckert_gnu.html the copyright isn't even owned by gnu.org, it's released under the Free Art Licence

  23. Umm yep by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Informative
    You can't simply revoke their license, the GPL has no provision for that (and thank God for that).

    RTFL:

    "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

  24. A charitable view... by CDarklock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assume the project starts up and hires some fly-by-night guy to design and build this system. He promises he can do it in four months for X amount of money.

    This guy tries like hell to build the project, but gets stymied by some stuff. So he downloads PearPC and tries to figure out what he's doing wrong.

    Eventually, he figures out that what he did wrong was promise something that nobody could deliver, so he panics and starts mucking around in PearPC to conceal its origin.

    When the deadline hits, he sends them his "obfuscated" version of PearPC and collects his check. He runs off into the night hoping nobody ever finds out.

    Meanwhile, the completely innocent company puts this project up for sale. The open source community raises hell. The company goes "OMG! WTF?" and yanks it off the market.

    After some examination, the company decides that the only possible way to recover from this (according to their lawyers) is to GPL the project. Since it qualifies as a work made for hire, they own all the rights to the non-PearPC code, so they can license *that* however they like.

    Just playing devil's advocate. Maybe the big bad company isn't the villain here; maybe it's just one crappy little ass-hat developer.

    --
    Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    1. Re:A charitable view... by saddino · · Score: 5, Informative

      That was my initial impression as well, but that is clearly not the case. As the developer, Arben Kryesiu has been extremely vocal about his "creation" of CherryOS and has granted many interviews proudly describing his "inspiration" to write CherryOS -- hardly a "fly-by-night" developer who got caught up in a lie and skipped town after delivering a bogus product.

      The "company" that owns CherryOS, Maui-X Stream, has the following in their bio:

      Jim Kartes is the president of Maui-X Stream. He and Arben Kryesiu started the company in the winter of 2003.

      So, this publicity hounding "developer" is a also co-founder of the company, and hence: the company is not an innocent player in all of this.

    2. Re:A charitable view... by drew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in this case, the 'certain employee' who claimed (publicly, not just to his boss) to have written cherryOS in four months, by himself, is one of the founders of the company. this is not a large company we're talking about, here, this is a small shop with at most a couple of developers.

      So, we have a company that was founded by a guy who is known to have blatantly disregarded the GPL in the past, that from all apearances has no employees except the two founders, whose two main commercial products show substantial evidence of consisting mainly of code taken from open source projects.

      you may wish to give 'the company' the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions in this mess, but if you do, just remember, they are not the victim of some 'fly by night' contractor, but of one of their own founders.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  25. I have by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    RTFL

    I have. But have you heard of a small legal principle called 'due process'? Once you've legally established that 4 has been violated, the license is revoked. It said so in the next sentence. Your claim that the license has been violated is not a conviction.

    Otherwise IBM would have had to stop shipping AIX long ago based on SCOs claim that the license is revoked. See the difference? If you want to terminate their license, you must prove (a preponderance of evidence) that there are grounds for termination.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:I have by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Informative
      The fact that no due process has taken place does not mean the license has not been terminated; it just means that such termination has not yet been legally proven. That's not the same thing. The recovation still takes place at the moment of the infraction.

      In other words, if the termination gets legally proven, then the termination has confirmed legal force from the moment of the first infraction of the GPL.

  26. Curiouser and Curiouser... by rincebrain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The company site has removed CherryOS from their product listings.

    http://www.mxsinc.com/

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  27. Re:Even funnier... by Ciaran_H · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That brings up an interesting point, actually. The website talks about it being an open source project, and they use the GNU logo on the page. From this, people can reasonably assume that it'd be GPL. But I don't think it actually says anywhere that it'd actually be GPL. They could have another trick up their sleeve

    Obviously, as PearPC is GPL, legally CherryOS would have to be GPL, so I could be on an entirely wrong track here, but is there a form of open source license that prohibits forking?

  28. CherryOS is not his only problem. by GoRK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This dude should have kept a low profile from the start. He has been ripping of OSS Projects for years. CherryOS is only his latest victim. MXS has already pulled PDF Creator after it was shown to be a total ripoff of opensource, and their "flagship product" the VX30 java/web/video/whatever thing rips code from the following projects according to an analasys by 'eventhorizon' on the pearpc.net boards. These packages were all found by examining text strings, so there likely could be many more libraries, etc. that the strings have been stripped from.

    XviD
    MplayerC (windows gui frontend)
    FileDropListCtrl (no credit was given)
    DEFLATE code
    Inflate code
    JOrbis
    LAME

    Arben et al are lately trying to hide the stolen code by packing the executables via UPX or some similar or slightly modified PE compressor, so the analasys is being done on memory dumps of the binaries after decompression.

    Their VX30 products are priced from $1,000 up. Oddly enough, the VX30 product actually seems to work pretty well. At least in this particular case, it's a shame that with little more effort and perhaps the choice of a couple different libraries and methods of writing their application that could have legally produced and sold this product... at least until people find more stolen code in it :)

  29. Link to revocation of licence rights by CdBee · · Score: 4, Informative

    " If you're reading this, anyone at MXS, I have been far more than fair. I have so far only ever asked you to comply with the GPL, and release your source code. But now you've pissed me off. Being that I need now contact a lawyer, I will not stop simply there. Being that I'm full copyright owner of my code, and can do as I please, including providing overriding licenses to those openly available.

    Since I view Maui X-Stream as in breach of the GPL under which my code is distributed, let this serve as public notice, that my code is no longer legally available for any reason to Maui X-Stream. Since they refuse to co-operate with the very lenient guidelines of the GPL, and refuse at all ends to comply with it. They can no longer claim any rights under the GPL license concerning my code. As such, my original rights of copyright apply, and I refuse any legal access to Maui X-Stream to my code (my code being specifically the G4/AltiVec emulation in generic, and in specific to x86 scalar, and SSE as implemented as a modification to the PearPC project)"


    Text copied from here

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU